ST/SGB/ (see copy below) for a Delegation of Authority (DoA) that covered ... misconduct and disciplinary measures (whic
Dear Participants and Beneficiaries and Pension Fund constituents,
23 May 2014
Further to the CEO’s open letter dated 20 May 2014 responding to what the CEO referred to as « misinformation on the Pension Fund », we wish to show the facts based on the various documents which have come to light on the subject. The issue started with Paragraph 13 of the General Assembly (GA) resolution A/RES/68/247 shown below. The scope of the recommendation was limited to “policies governing recruitment, promotion and retention of the staff of the Fund” and requested a report on the outcome of the review and any measures proposed.
In response to this resolution, the Pension Fund through the CEO created an HR taskforce. This task force initiated an ST/SGB/ (see copy below) for a Delegation of Authority (DoA) that covered recruitment and promotion (which were on the GA resolution), but also termination, entitlement to benefits and allowances, investigation of allegations of misconduct and disciplinary measures (which were not at all covered by the GA resolution). Therefore, the ST/SBG was far and beyond the scope of the GA resolution. It was planned to sign the ST/SGB on 1 June 2014 and send it to the Board as a final document. That’s against the request of the GA resolution to “report on the outcome of the review and any measure proposed” (emphasis added). Therefore, any document that is not presented as a proposal is against the resolution and should not be accepted.
Consequently, a copy of the draft ST/SGB having been leaked, the Staff through their representatives challenged the Delegation of Authority (DoA) on the basis that it was not the report requested by the GA resolution and covered areas that were not even mentioned on that resolution. However, what alarmed most staff and constituents the most were the documents received from the “Staff Voice” which contained the “Plan of Action” to implement the Delegation of Authority. This plan contained a draft ST/AI on the Administration of Continuing Appointments at UNJSPF, and a Draft Memo from the ASG for OHRM to Pension Fund Staff giving them their options, including agreed termination. These documents have been made public by the “Staff Voice”. We are simply showing a few highlights in those documents. Fact: Plan of Action, Paragraph 2:
In this open letter of 20 May 2014, the CEO stated: “The current review of the existing MoU will not affect conditions of service or contractual status for staff of the Fund”. The above ST/SGB, the above paragraph on the Plan of Action and the draft ST/AI (Fact: Document below) clearly show the opposite. The draft Delegation of Authority with an action plan to execute it and a draft ST/AI to be implemented are far and beyond the “current review of existing MoU” that the CEO is now claiming to be implementing.
Fact: The Draft Memo addressed to UNJSPF Staff: The Memo imposes appointment limited to service with UNJSPF to all staff members appointed to UNJSPF. That is a clear change of contractual status for all UNJSPF Staff, who are currently holding appointments that do not contain any limitation of service within the UN Family. The memo contained options that include agreed termination. The statement that “there are no plans to otherwise negatively affect the existing staff, including their contractual status” is in sharp contradiction to the draft memo below leaving no options other than Pension Fund contract, Secondment limited to 5 years or Agreed Termination.
At the end of the Memo, the UNJSPF Staff Member was presented with three options, including Agreed Termination:
The CEO’s other point was that the Delegation of Authority (DoA) “will not have any impact on the Fund’s investments or pension payments”. It may be subtle, but we hope you have noted that the Delegation of Authority on HR Matters for UNJSPF was to be given ONLY to the CEO. The delegation did not limit the Authority to UNJSPF Secretariat only, but UNJSPF, and that includes Investment Management Division (IMD). Paragraph 3.4 of the Delegation of Authority simply requests the CEO to “consult with the RSG for the investment of the assets of the Fund in all HR matters pertaining to IMD. Therefore, with a signed DoA, the CEO will have authority over the full UNJSPF for HR matters. The performance of the investment (IMD) and efficient processing of pension payments (Secretariat) depend a great deal on the Staff in these areas. The negative impact of the DoA on the staff (proven above), which will include transfers to UN Secretariat and Agreed Terminations will most certainly affect the performance of investments and efficiency of pension payments. The GA resolution requested a review on, among others, retention of staff. The DoA and its implementation presented staff with three options, two of which are for getting rid of staff (Agreed Termination and Secondment). The CEO claims that “there are no plans to either lower any recruitment standards or centralize powers to the CEO”; yet, section 2.1 (g) of the DoA is requesting to “make exceptions to the Staff Rules subject to the conditions laid down in the relevant staff rule on amendments of and exceptions to the Staff Rules”. What would be the need for exception if not to lower the recruitment standard by using the exception in order to hire or promote staff who do not meet the normal standard? If power is not centralized at the CEO, why was the same DoA not granted to the RSG with respect to Investments HR matters? Conclusion: The Staff of UNJSPF and their representatives have not misrepresented facts. The statements that have been circulated showed the possible consequences for the Fund and its staff if the DoA is signed. The statements were based on the above explained facts. But it seems from the CEO’s open letter that the issue is not regarding a Delegation of Authority but a “current review of the existing MoU”. Well, this is not what the CEO informed his Geneva staff on his email dated 15 April 2014 (Fact: email to GVA staff, excerpt below). The message clearly talks about the “current initiative on delegation of authority”, and does indicate that the proposals would not negatively affect staff benefits, but did NOT state that it will not negatively affect their contractual status, but rather the “benefits”.
Clearly, the draft ST/SGB on Delegation of Authority, the draft ST/AI on continuing appointment, and the Draft HR Memo to Pension Fund staff HAVE NOT MENTIONED NOT EVEN ONCE THE WORD MoU. Having seen and read the above, does it now make sense why the constituents (Staff, Participants, Beneficiaries, and others) of the Fund are worried?
